PaoloRus: Most of the best whiskeys are 12 years old or older. Indeed, some very good ones are 40 years old. So you can happily keep drinking for quite a few more years yet.

Came across this, has some interesting opinions!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/22-01-2013/123540-obama_gun_control-0/

(V): Same with facebook.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/10/facebook-uk-taxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk

Bernice: LOL, yes but we have a far larger population than yours, so we are entitled to having more and bigger idiots!

The search was not hard, but limited choice! It would be a safe bet to say that any country hosting the olympics will go over budget and social injustices arising. Our original estimate was done on the back of a fag packet :)

Bernice: You say:
"if the country is this well off, there should be NO ONE on the dole...what a pack of idiots spending all that wasted cash when they have thousands and thousands of people starving and homeless :(
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230849.html"

However, you seem to have forgotten about your own pack of idiots:

Sydney's homeless to be removed for Olympics:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/olymp-f03.shtml


Financial fiasco brewing in Australia over Sydney Olympic Games:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/olym-m03.shtml

(V): Well, its down to how you define 'free.'

Wind, solar, and even hydrocarbon are all 'free' energy, in the sense that you can produce more energy from them than what you put in to extract it.

This is the same with a bird (or even a glider). You need some energy to first reach that height, but then using the energy in the thermal (potential) convert it into motion (kinetic) to theoretically stay airborne indefinitely.

However, this is not the same 'free' as being able to extract more energy than that which is available, something only a perpetual energy machine can do, i.e. create energy out of nothing, something truely free and unencumbered! However, your bird is encumbered, its height and speed is limited by the energy available in the thermal.

(V): Thank you for the link. Had a skim read, but will look at more carefully later, with an open mind :)

I did pick up two statements in the article "...you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it," and "more energy can’t be taken out of a system than is put into it or is already in it.”

The former statement is of course wrong as the author argues. Whether it be solar, wind, geothermal, hydrocarbon etc. these are all forms of potential energy, which we then convert (mostly) into kinetic energy to generate power.

The latter statement is true, imho, and refers to perpetual energy / motion machines which are not possible. I believe this is what you referred to as 'free' energy. But I'll read the article carefully first!

(V): Guess you are talking about magnetic motors. Sorry, they don't work and certainly don't give free energy.

Neodymium magnets are very widely used, not just in wind turbines. Your computer hard drive probably uses them too! There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field.

(V): "Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and now magnetic power amplifiers that produce more energy than inputted."

Produce more energy than input?????
Which journal did you read that in? Thought they had stopped publishing the 'Sunday Sport' :)

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for
a stroll in town one Day. As they walk,
they come across a sign:
"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her,
"Well, how'd ya do?" "
First Place !," said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign:
"Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour, he returns and they ask him,
"How did you make out?"
First Place ," answers Superman.
"Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar ! in the world?"
Pinocchio enters. After half an hour he
returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the heck is Obama?" asked Pinocchio

Tuesday: Well for a start,

"On October 10, 2002, Mrs Clinton voted to authorise then-president George W Bush to use military force against Iraq. In March the following year, Mr Bush gave the order to invade.

Iraq represented no imminent threat to the US or to any other country. The invasion was an unprovoked act of aggression. It violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the UN Charter (Chapter VII, Article 39) and the Nuremberg Charter proscription of aggressive war (Article 6(a)). "

Or are you speaking about the man?

Tuesday: Yes, he's guilty too
But at least he admits to it!

Tuesday: Those not afflicted with myopia would argue that Clinton is one of the world's leading war criminals!

(V): "40%+60%+ how much do the infirm and unemployed working age people account for?"

I might have missed a class or two as well
The current unemployment rate is about 8% (we'll assume it includes the infirm), so we now have a worse situation where 32% of the working population provide for the 60% in public sector and services + 8% unemployed.

In other words, only about 11% of the total population are wealth creators!

(V): The 60% (actually I think it is nearer 65%) includes all those who are funded from the public purse. So yes, it includes many other services, all of whom consume wealth.

Oh dear, you are trying to find some fault, which is irrelevant to the point, just for some cheap point scoring. Let me spell it out, as I guess you missed that class in primary school.
40% of the UK working population is not 40% of the total population.
Indeed the total working population is about 62% of the total population, which leaves 38% for the rest.

No, you can only include tax from the private sector in the determination. Tax generated from the public sector is simply money being recycled back to government, its original source being the private sector. In your example of a company providing artificial joints, only tax on export revenues can be considered as wealth creation.

Pedro Martínez: My dad once told me when I had a headache as a child, that I should bang my head against a wall. He added, that when you stop, you will then feel much better!

I'm sure he was trying to tell me something too

(V): They save lives, true, but so do doctors, nurses, paramedics, firemen etc, etc. Are you suggesting they should all be paid the same because they save lives?

It is your beloved socialist leaders that got us in to this mess. The health service is overflowing with bureaucrats, making these life saving services unafforable. Idea, what about raising taxes even more?

You are no doubt aware, that only 40% of the UK working population are wealth creators (private sector) who provide for the other 60% (public sector) as well as the infirm, elderly, unemployed and young. How is this funded? Ah tax (and only tax from the private sector can be counted), and our budget deficit, increasing to the trillions we already owe. This at the expense of future generations, just so you can live up to your socialist ideals today.

And when those #10 beer drinkers leave, then what are you going to do? Borrow more, well the bond yield curve is already rising. The BoE will no longer have control over interest rates, the market is already adjusting the rates.

(V): >"They'd have to prove they are all squeaky clean first."
That will be pretty hard to do! Guess you are safe from a libel charge then

Yes, like Einstein, I believe it leads to a deeper understanding to "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

(V): OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”

On the beer, I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think the point of capital flight was very clear.

Regarding your "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz," I didn't realise you suffered from somnipathy. Hopefully you don't also experience the related disorders of nocturia or worse still enuresis. Hopefully the “death squad” that we have in the UK will be able to provide you with the most effective prescriptions. Sadly, for many, the “death squad” leaves many little alternative, other than just dying. And you want to defend this!

(V): Life saving op? You are more likely to die from a life saving op in the UK than actually be saved. Either that or you catch MRSA on your way out!

(V): A few minutes ago we lived in a democracy. Now we live in a "kinda democracy."
Not really a democracy then!

Fortunately you don't live in Scotland and face lunacy such as this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/ignorance_of_scottish_pr0n_law_no_defence/

As to capital flight, the tax system explained in beer is a perfect example of this. Surprising you did not follow that!

Übergeek 바둑이: Interesting choice of countries to use to demonstrate your point!

In Guatemala, if they raised the tax rate, do you think things would be any better. See Tax System Explained In Beer for the answer. You are also mixing corruption and taxation in you arguement. So is corruption to blame or taxation for the country's poverty?

Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run. The UK has one of the worst health care systems in the world. It is state run. It is expensive. It is wasteful. It is the single biggest employer in the world and consumes about 10% of the UK working population!!!

(V): You really believe you live in a democracy? Funniest thing I have heard all day

The point of capital flight is way above your head otherwise you would not have answered with some trifling prattle about business rates. You clearly have no understanding of the importance of FDI and the efforts of the nation in competing for this!

(V):
1. Yes we all pay tax, the wealthy more than the less well off. So we agree on this point, but I don't think this invalidates the prof's point, rather that you missed the point.

2. Business certainly lives up to its side of the bargain, it is called salary and corporation tax. Government, they have no use as far as I am concerned and is simply a pointless and very expensive cost for little value.

3. Your 'real events' are prattle and trifling.
As to Next, clearly you don't understand the significance.

(V): You are confusing income tax, which is what the prof is talking about, from other types of taxes. VAT is not applied to essential items such as food and childrens clothing and reduced for things like heating oil. It is a consumption tax, the more you consume the more you pay.

"People need to live happily" Agreed, but it is not the reponsibility of government or the rich to ensure this, but the individual.

Your last point and examples are nothing but prattle and is ignorant of economic realities.
Organisations are already moving their HQs out of the UK. Next is a very topical example.

(V): >"In cash.. but in the difference between having enough and not to live on"
Not really clear on what your point is. The analogy to the beer tax example is that someone on the lowest wage would not be affected by a tax reduction, as they are not being taxed anyway!

Revolutions!? Again, what is your point?

No, the creators of wealth are not bankers. Wealth creators do not need resort to blackmail, they just move as they please.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry to take so long to reply to your extensive answer. Much of what you say I can agree on, but much I disagree with too.

You also seem to be implying that my arguement is similar to that old chesnut, "take half the cars off the road and you will cut carbon emissions in half." We know that is not true, and that is not what I am saying here either. It is simply another inefficient tax, applied to gain some social equality, but only ends up making a nation poorer. But I'm repeating myself!

Here is a nice story I came across, explaining the tax system quite nicely :)

"THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?


They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, as many are considering where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
By David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Übergeek 바둑이: Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer in a way more becoming of you. It demonstrates a bit more respect than a sarcastic jibe.

>”Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth..”
In making such a request, I would have at least expected the courtesy that you provided some of your own statistical data to back your argument first. Overlooking this, let me point you to some modern day examples such as Hong Kong, Ethiopia, India. Even Ireland in its latest austerity budget actually reduced the statutory minimum wage, recognising the fact it is a hindrance to growth. In fact, all (informed) governments recognise this, however, they seek to gain political popularity through such measures to the detriment of the nation.

>”Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.”
I see you have used an example from my country :)
The women and children you talk about were part of a mass migration of labour from subsistence farming to the cities, where opportunities to work and better themselves existed. They were able to afford better food, clothing, medicine and even basic education, all of which was previously non-existent to them. The capitalists certainly benefited from that, and so they should, but so did all their workers.

>”No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.”
Yes, I agree, they were built by the hands of workers who migrated from all over the country to carry out such work. Unskilled labourers, stone masons, carpenters, engineers, architects, etc. all paid for by private money for the benefit and good of all. This private money came about from enterprise, from these greedy capitalists!

>”You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.”
Although I disagree, I will accept your assertion. However, I maintain that the minimum wage does effect the supply and demand for labour in a way that causes greater unemployment. This fact is irrefutable if you care to do a bit of research.

>”Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.”
Not clear on what point you are trying to make. We are as skilled, but in different ways. The minimum wage effects mostly the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The minimum wage is dysfunctional to the market, the economy and the wealth of a nation and its people.

>”If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.”
Yes, this is true and as the Western economies shoot themselves in the foot with these social polices which hurt competitiveness, we can see other nations now starting to overtake on the huge head start we had. This head start of course achieved through minimal intervention in business and the economy.

>”But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.”
Now we are discussing factor endowment of nations and the national policies of these governments. Hong Kong, Ethiopia, Bangladesh are good examples of nations breaking the downward spiral of poverty. Indeed, it was not so long ago that the UK was exactly as you describe, and in only the space of 200-300 years has it developed to what we see today. Hong Kong is an example of subsistence living to 'modern' living in less than 50 years.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.”
Yes and look how China has progressed in the last 20 years.
Please watch this video, and compare it to the productivity of your country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogQRjGGxkZQ
I find this not only amazing, but very upsetting as we kill our economies on the false social benefits that we desire. I am not asserting that the minimum wage is the result of the disparity in productivity, but it is one of the many contributing factors.

Bwild:
Yes, I just managed to pick up on that, though he was using it (sarcasm) to argue for the minimum wage. Also doesn't change the fact that his arguement was poorly structured, sarcasm or not! Quite unusual for Ubergeek, whos posts are often some of the best and always well constructed and thought through.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh dear, bit surprised at the quality of your argument, which are usually well formulated. Here you have resorted to emotive language to support your argument, there is no chronology, instead you jump around history, picking examples to support your case and mix up the argument by bringing the responsibility of other legislation into the frame.

If that is not clear, let me demonstrate some of the many fallacies in your argument.

>“The minimum wage damages the economy because those rich people who own business have to pay more to their workers and that means that the profits of the rich get a little bit smaller”
True, and I'm sure you don't need me to spell out the reasons why this is actually destructive in creating wealth for a nation.

>”We should go back to the 19th century and eliminate the minimum wage. In that way children will go back to work, women will get paid a lot less, older workers can be easily replaced by younger ones, and the rich business owners can "improve their economy" by keeping those wages for themselves.”
This is emotive and history conveniently starts in the 19th century for your argument. I suggest you look back to the two previous centuries and understand the situation and the transitions that were made from then to today. Hint, suggest you also look at population growth during these periods as well and the reasons behind this phenomenal growth.
Also, there is also no evidence to suggest that children etc. will go back to work if the minimum wage is abolished. This is the remit of other legislation, including health & safety, which has done much to ensure the safety of the work force.

>”On the plus side, those rich business owners will stop sending jobs by "outsourcing" overseas. Since there is no minimum wage, business owners don't have to open factories in poor countries. Everything can be manufactured cheaply right here at home”
Very true, and this increases the wealth of the nation. However, your terminology, “those rich business owners” is again emotive. These people you speak of took risk, provided opportunity to many and improved life for all. Look at any old city and ask yourself who built those magnificent houses, art galleries, theatres, universities, museums, railways, etc. etc. It was not government.

>”Let's face it. The minimum wage just leads to lazy, stubborn, unskilled workers.”
True, very well spotted!

>“That is why in the 19th century those handmade goods were made without skill or ability.”
False, 19th century goods are highly sought. They were made by very skilled craftsmen. What are you antique stores full of? Certainly not modern day dross.

>”By giving people a minimum wage there is just no "incentive" to learn and be productive.”
Again, well spotted, though I would say less incentive rather than no incentive. This is based on the degree that differentiation has been diminished.

>” Proof lies in the fact that in the 19th century when there was no minimum wage "soooo" many people were educated and literate as compared to today when the minimum wage allows the working class to pay for an education for their children.”
Proof of what? You have not made any assertion or hypothesis. What is the relationship between the minimum wage and education? Again, suggest you look at history without conveniently starting in a place that suits your argument. The industrial revolution did more for the health and education for the nation than any government.

>”We should get rid of the minimum wage, along with employment insurance, health care and universally available education. In that way we can go back to the good old days when the poor were so desperate that communism actually looked attractive.”
Employment insurance- What are you talking about?
Health Care- The best health care in the world is privately run. The UK state run health care is one of the worst in the world.
Education- Again, the best education is privately run. The Industrial revolution, however, provided more learning opportunities for more people than ever before in history. Oh yes, this only came about because of your greedy business owners, not government.

Like V, you need to try harder. Score 1/10. The 1 awarded, because even in your confusion you managed to get a couple of things right!

(V): Good, so now that you have stated your position and your (mis) understandingS, happy to answer your points.


“It does nothing to encourage a skilled and liquid labour market”
Quite the opposite.
Firstly skills are purchased at a premium. If there was no reward for learning a skill, then there would be no differentiation and all would earn the same amount.
By introducing the minimum wage you effectively reduce the differentiation and reward, hence providing less encouragement for a skilled labour force. Alternatively, if the differentiation is to be maintained, then the employer has to pay a higher cost for labour, resulting in diminished competitiveness and therefore eventual loss of business and unemployment. Simple economics.

A liquid labour market is not encouraged by the minimum wage, but instead creates an illiquid market. It results in less movement of labour as again differentiation and free market forces have been skewed by these populist but fallacious ideas. Regarding unemployment benefit, which you seemed to associate with this discussion, this too is another market aberration, again resulting in the increased cost of labour and reduction of liquidity. Simple economics.


“The lack of such a minimum wage is a tax on the income the government gets”
Duh, surely you can't be serious with this statement!?


“As such it is also exploitation”
Good, where people feel exploited, they will move on = increased liquidity. Simple economics.


“And has led to much civil unrest in the past. Which is another drain of public funds.. which, are raised on taxes.. as I'm sure you know”
Your reasoning is circular here. What you are effectively saying, is that the minimum wage provides a tax revenue which will enable government to afford the quelling of any uprising on its own citizens, but to prevent the uprising occurring in the first place we will introduce a tax on labour through means of a minimum wage, hence avoiding the uprising, but we will keep the tax receipts any way and make our nation less competitive. There is a real cost here, the government has again reduced the competitiveness of business and again the business fails and unemployment increases. Simple economics.


“I've seen (before minimum was introduced) companies staff changing rapidly, as people moved on quickly. It wasn't they didn't like the job, just they could not afford to live on the pay. The result being that new staff had to be advertised for and trained. When a decent wage was paid. People stuck at the job. “
These are commercial decisions to be made by a company. They are the best decision makers in these matters, not government.
Staff turnover = increased liquidity!
Skilled labour commands a reward and the company will pay a premium for this in order to retain this staff.
For unskilled labour, the wage will be optimised between the cost of retention and new hires.
All simple economics.




“As for higher costs. Shop around.. haggle.. ebay. Labour costs are a small % of the actual retail price usually, as I'm sure you know.”
Another bizarre statement, which also depends on the nature of the business. For most businesses, labour costs are one the largest, if not the largest operating cost of a business. And more so because of labour taxes.


Well, I can only give you a score of 1/10 (the 1 is awarded for your imaginative suggestion to use ebay to purchase items at a lower cost)

Try harder!

(V): You have not stated the basis of your question, your position, nor your knowledge on the subject. Hence communicating the answer in a way that you might understand is my challenge.

I can only surmise from your question that either:

a) You don't understand simple economics.
This is fine, just say so, and I'm sure I can explain this in lay-mans terms that you can understand, or

b) You disagree with me.
In which case you don't understand simple economics (see option a), or

c) You agree with me
In which case not sure why you asked.

(V): Well, I can't answer that specifically for the populace of the USA.
Personnally, I welcome immigrant labour, whether it is legal or illegal. Why would I want to pay a higher cost for something? The minimum wage is a form of tax and consequently damages both economy and labour market... simple economics!

(V): Straight answer? Depends if there is a straight question? What is that question to which you seek an answer? Certainly not clear from below.

Artful Dodger: Yes, true. And being disrespectful of Americans was not my intention either.

Indeed, I believe, one of the most important qualities, other than values and beliefs, of a president (any leader) is to put together an effective team. Without an effective team in place, all those beliefs of small government, less taxes and central spending (good imho), will not get implemented.

What does she propose to do to the Fed? Will Bubbles Bernanke remain or will real change be seen? Obama promised it, but the old team remains.

(V):



Facts: Sarah Palin is stupid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irklZ-iZjhI

Fox News Proves Sarah Palin Is Dumber Than Bush - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c&feature=fvw

Sarah Palin Thinks Humans & Dinosaurs Co-Existed - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-4ZgxosiKY&feature=channel


The 10 dumbest Palin quotes - http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm


Africa is a country, not a continent etc.
This is hilarious, but the Americans seem to have a wonderful knack of choosing the dumbest canditate for president. The clever ones get assinated!

Experienced Politician =
Know how to lie
Always have a fall guy to take the blame
Give credible platitudes
Know how to spin spin spin
Be able to waffle
Be able to manipulate their expenses
Talk down your opponents and their ideas, no matter how good they are.
Know how to smile
Know how to look sad
Hold a baby
When all goes fails, bring out national pride and raise the flag
Be able to say "it is the right thing to do" with a straight face, whilst all others think you are living on a different planet.

Hmmmmm, sure you can add to the list :)

Bernice: Townsville? It looks beautiful.
Is Magnetic Island really magnetic?

(V): That is quite specific! The guy? Who are you referring to? Julian Assange perhaps?

Is there really a prosecution against him? Who is prosecuting, the US or the UK? If indeed there is any prosecution, it should be against the intelligence officer that leaked the material in the first place.

(V): To what case are your specifically referring?

Civil rights and freedom of speech vary widely across the world, and indeed only imply a right.

Governments may have a very different interpretation of your rights under the banner of national interests.

Infact, one might postulate that the right is the defender of civil liberties, whilst the left is the defender of civil rights.

Artful Dodger: Yes, and the 'left' as Tuesday calls them, is violating your civil liberties in the name of civil rights.

Tuesday: Huh? Freedom of speech is a civil right.

(V): Yes, a demand made by the G20 last year. Agreement has been made with Liechtenstein, tax on interest expected to raise £1bn for UK coffers. Negotiations currently in progress with others and the Swiss. The latter will be an even bigger contribution!

Difficulty is that the world of offshore banking is huge, and new loop holes will be found.

(V): Sadly this true, but not just of the US.

The US has such a large economic influence on the rest of the world, the policy and legislation that we end up with (I say 'we' as it impacts us all, not just US citizens) simply please the few (global organisations) and hurt the many.

Artful Dodger: Transparent government... now that was another election pledge. Do any remain unbroken?

He was voted in that way, i.e. with a past no one knew much about. However, the problem with such questions (once in power) is that they are attributed to celebrities. That is, people and media are interested in who they are, where they are going, what they are wearing etc. etc. This is well known by the PR sector and can be used deliberately as a ploy to distract away from the real issues.

Artful Dodger: Only 50 states? But Obama during his campaign visited 57 states and said he still had one to go!

The figures which I haven't seen yet, am sure they are far worse when then the fudges of Birth/Death Adjustments & Seasonal Labour Adjustments are taken into account. Indeed the labour changes are statistically insignificant when compared to these adjustments.

(V): I still have faith in the hand shake / word is bond. However I do believe people are more mistrusting of others these days.

Iron fist / velvet glove (or silk glove) is an expression describing someone who is autocratic but who has a softer exterior. So I was referring to the person.
With Bush it was easy, just an iron fist, but you knew where you stood with him.
With a velvet glove, this is a very dangerous combination, does one thing, says another.

The Col: But that's part of my point. Of course they aren't. Presidents are selected not elected.
Obama has already committed high treason against his country and reneged on all his promises. But were we surprised? Of course not, he dances to the tune of the puppet masters.

(V): Some might argue the destruction started in 1888, others might point to more recent times, e.g. 1913, 1953 or the 1980s.

For sure Obama did not create the mess, but he is the puppet that is overseeing the demise of the US.

Remember he did promise real change. That is why he was elected. All he gives is platitudes. An iron fist with a velvet glove.

Don't know what handshakes and honour has to do with it.